Who is the greatest player of the Pre-War Era?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by BobC

It is known that Cobb wasn't crazy about the home run style of play, much preferred the deadball era style he grew up with. Yet, there is the fact that Cobb is tied for the all-time major league record for the number of home runs hit in two consecutive games, along with the story he said something to a reporter about proving he could hit home runs if he really wanted to. A lot of speculation and debate about it, but the fact is he does hold part of an all-time major league home run record that still stands today. And one that Ruth couldn't equal. Also, Cobb did win the Triple Crown one year, Ruth never did that. Oh, and the home run record Cobb co-owns, none of the home runs he hit to match the record were inside-the-park home runs or were ones that bounced over the outfield wall. All were legit, over the fence homers.

Hi Bob

My gauge of the "greatness" of a BB player is his World Series performance. Ruth (and I include Mantle). Two significant s factors...... first, the fact that the Yankees played in 10 World Series while Ruth was on the team tells you a lot. He was an inspiration to his team which got them there. And his .326 BA, 15 HR's, and 33 RBI's stats far exceed what Cobb did in his three World Series appearances.


Incidentally,
I got a chuckle out of your "Cobb Triple Crown" comment. In 1923 Ruth batted .393....41 HRs....130 RBI's. Numbers much greater than Cobb's. But, Heilmann led the AL with .403 BA.
that prevented Ruth from being the Triple Crown winner in the AL in 1923.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hi Bob

My gauge of the "greatness" of a BB player is his World Series performance. Ruth (and I include Mantle). Two significant s factors...... first, the fact that the Yankees played in 10 World Series while Ruth was on the team tells you a lot. He was an inspiration to his team which got them there. And his .326 BA, 15 HR's, and 33 RBI's stats far exceed what Cobb did in his three World Series appearances.


Incidentally,
I got a chuckle out of your "Cobb Triple Crown" comment. In 1923 Ruth batted .393....41 HRs....130 RBI's. Numbers much greater than Cobb's. But, Heilmann led the AL with .403 BA.
that prevented Ruth from being the Triple Crown winner in the AL in 1923.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

All due respect, the World Series alone is a nominal factor, at best, in determining how good an individual player is. Baseball is a team sport, and regardless of how good an individual is, they cannot single-handedly propel a team all by themself to always win. Now if you want to talk golf, tennis, or boxing, that's different. The teams that Ruth played on were stacked with other great players, so pitchers couldn't get by just pitching around Ruth all the time. They didn't nickname the Yankee's lineup back then as Murderer's Row for nothing. In fact, what other pre-war lineups can you name that were considered so good that they got their own nickname like that? Certainly none of Cobb's teams to my knowledge ever got anywhere near that kind of credit or acclaim.

Also, baseball has always been known as a grind, where players have to go through the long, hard season to even get to the playoffs or World Series. Not downplaying how important it is when a ballplayer does exceedingly well during a World Series, but to base one's opinion as to how great of a player they are largely on that factor seems quite disrespectful to all the other great ballplayers who have ever played, but were not fortunate enough to play alongside enough other great ballplayers to achieve overall team success. Plus, Ruth played for New York, the largest city and and arguably the biggest market at the time. The hype and exposure he received was unparralleled. Think about this, what if Ruth had ended up playing for a different team like Cleveland, and still hit all the home runs he did, but never went to and won all the World Series championships he did with the Yankees. Would he still be the mythical figure he is today and credited with supposedly saving baseball single-handedly after the Black Sox scandal? Or was at least some of that legend not also due to him being lucky enough to play on a team loaded with other great players and also being hyped by a media and market that were pretty much unequalled at the time?

In today's game, Mike Trout often gets called the best player of his time. His cards have sold for record amounts, and the media loves him, but he is not overly quirky or has any strange or unusual habits or stories that make him exceptionally memorable. Say Trout finishes out his career with the Angels and no major surprises or scandals, and ends up in several top 10 offensive categories all-time. Yet what has all that baseball ability gotten him while playing for the Angels, certainly no significant playoff or World Series exposure, and likely none in the future if he stays with them. Also, he's now got a new teammate with a much better story and hype than Trout ever had. So even if Trout continues putting up great numbers for several more years, is he possibly going to be overshadowed on his own team by Ohtani? And how will that be reflected in the way Trout is looked at and remembered by the general public 25, 50, 100 years after he's done playing? I'm not talking about SABR nerds or collector geeks like myself, but the general public. Chances are he may not be so well remembered, and largely forgotten, lacking any special story or circumstances that make him larger than life. I bring this up because it may help to further explain the difficulty in trying to not just compare players from different eras, but even compare contemporary players from similar times long past when we have no one with any first hand knowledge or observation of them still around today to give an honest, first hand comparison of how they really stacked up to each other. That is why I wonder if as an earlier poster already put forth, we should go with who many respected and knowledgable baseball people of that time time felt was the best player then.

And glad I gave you a laugh, but in all seriousness, that Cobb actually led the majors in home runs one season was the salient point I was most trying to get across. The fact that it was known he was not trying to hit home runs, as you aptly pointed out by his use of a choked-up batting grip, yet he still was able to lead the majors in that category one season during the height of the deadball era, points to Cobb having an ability that was ahead of most all others of his contemporaries. At least till the end of the deadball era. And again, look at the teammates Ruth had around him most of his career versus who Cobb, Wagner, and others were surrounded with. Aside from hitting a lot of solo home runs, you need other players to be on base when a player is up to bat if they really want to get their RBI totals among league leaders. Ruth's easiest categories to lead in the Triple Crown were HRs and RBIs, as no one else was trying (and able) to hit home runs like he was initially when the deadball era ended. And since RBIs are a direct by-product of HRs, it is a given that Ruth would normally be among the league's RBI leaders, year in and year out. Now the fact that he couldn't also get the top average one year to win the Triple Crown does not disparage Ruth in any way. There were a lot of great hitters back then to contend with, and Heilman was a great player in his own right, and very deserving of winning the AL batting average crown that year. But the manner in which you phrased your comment and made it a point to specifically compare Ruth's 1923 Triple Crown stats to those of Cobb in his Triple Crown season in a disparaging manner is disrespectful not only to Cobb, but to every other AL player during Cobb's Triple Crown season. Regardless of the fact that the two seasons you are comparing are only 14 years apart, the changes to how the game was being played, especially in terms of things like the banning of spitballs and the deadball era being over during Ruth's 1923 season, make the direct correlation you are hinting at less than appropriate and comparable. Instead of pointing to how Cobb only had 9 HRs in his 1909 Triple Crown season while Ruth had so many more as he hit 41 in 1923, perhaps a better question would be how come no one else hit as many as Cobb that year he won the Triple Crown? And not only did Cobb win the AL Triple Crown in 1909, which is a rare achievement unto itself, he is one of I believe only 5 or 6 others to have won the Triple Crown where his stats bested everyone in majors, and not just in the AL or NL. So that means Cobb was going against, and bested, the likes of Wagner, Lajoie, Speaker, and others considered as possibly the all-time best pre-war player, in their prime. By the time Ruth got to the Yankees, those players were already entering their mid to late thirties, and Joe Jackson was getting banned, yet he stll couldn't get that elusive batting average title when he needed it. So bottom line, what Cobb did is no mean feat, regardless of the gross numbers he put up compared to numbers Ruth put up years later, after banning spitballs, juicing up the formerly "dead" balls, and who knows what other little tweaks and rule changes to the game to squeeze more offense out of it so the owners could make more money.

Quite frankly Ted, I've read and followed your posts and marveled at your knowledge on this forum over many years, but was never so disappointed in you to see you make such a disparaging remark about Cobb, and by extension, every other player during the 1909 season. Obviously your comment that my mentioning Cobb's Triple Crown when Ruth did not ever win one caused you to chuckle implies you found that to be some type of humorous or funny comparison, or in other words, some type of joke. I was actually mentioning Cobb's Triple Crown season not so much for the fact that Ruth didn't win one, but to illustrate how even though he wasn't into hitting HRs, Cobb still managed to lead the entire majors in HRs at least one year during his career, a feat which Ruth accomplished numerous times.

I am not disparaging Ruth in the slightest, but neither am I discounting Cobb, Wagner, and others simply because the rules and equipment were much different when they played the bulk of their careers. Time and the media have played such a huge factor over all these years as to what players are remembered and revered for, and can easily distort modern opinions and thinking. Think about what i was saying before about Mike Trout, and HONESTLY ask yourself how he may be viewed 100 years from now, and keep that perspective in mind when trying to compare past players against each other today.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Ty Cobb led the league with 9 home runs in the dead ball era, it's true. All 9 were inside the park, so not particularly indicative of some hidden power he opted not to use.

That being said I do have to agree with you that as a team sport World Series performance just can't be the "be all, end all" by that logic Ted Williams was an abject failure as a baseball player and Billy Martin was an all-time great. You can't just throw out career accomplishments because the Red Sox (for one example) never had any pitching to speak of in Ted's career.

For my money Cobb, Ruth and Williams are the three greatest ball players ever. I'm not overly hung up on how one ranks them, or even if someone disagrees, but for me Ruth's pitching puts him over the top of a very tight race, and just for Ted Z, Ruth was also one of the greatest PITCHERS in World Series history. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.

[bnorth]

My biased opinion is Ty Cobb. Weirdly I have never been a fan of the home run.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by bnorth

My biased opinion is Ty Cobb. Weirdly I have never been a fan of the home run.

I agree, Cobb should've stopped at third, damn show-off.

[mrreality68]

Cobb vs. Ruth

I will take either one as the Greatest Player Pre-War Era

You can use stats to argue your cause for either player.

IT is just amazing how great both players were and how much they both positively made a lasting impact on Baseball and its popularity.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Ty Cobb led the league with 9 home runs in the dead ball era, it's true. All 9 were inside the park, so not particularly indicative of some hidden power he opted not to use.

That being said I do have to agree with you that as a team sport World Series performance just can't be the "be all, end all" by that logic Ted Williams was an abject failure as a baseball player and Billy Martin was an all-time great. You can't just throw out career accomplishments because the Red Sox (for one example) never had any pitching to speak of in Ted's career.

For my money Cobb, Ruth and Williams are the three greatest ball players ever. I'm not overly hung up on how one ranks them, or even if someone disagrees, but for me Ruth's pitching puts him over the top of a very tight race, and just for Ted Z, Ruth was also one of the greatest PITCHERS in World Series history. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.

True they were all inside the park home runs, but that had much to do with the size of the fields and if they even had a fixed outfield wall. And again I ask, how come no one else matched or beat that number then? Ruth had all the advantages of smaller parks, a "live" ball, the banning of spitballs, and a major league ownership group supported by by New York media/marketing that wanted him to keep hitting more and more home runs so they'd keep packing the fans in. And don't forget, during the bulk of Ruth's career what is today considered a ground rule double when a fair ball bounces over an outfield fence, back then was counted as a home run.

And it was because of all these changes that I had also previously brought up in an earlier post the major league record Cobb shares with many others by having hit 5 HRs over two consecutive MLB games. Cobb was the second person to ever do this, achieving the feat in 1925 when he was already 38 years old. And by the way, all 5 five were over the fence. Ruth never equalled this feat despite all his home run prowess. And it wasn't equalled again till Tony Lazzeri matched the feat in 1936. It didn't happen again till Kiner did it on two separate occassions in 1947. The story/myth is that Cobb didn't really care for Ruth and all his HRs and supposedly told some reporter he could hit HRs if he wanted to. It's a bit like the Ruth "Called Shot" story, but regardless, Cobb does still hold a piece of a HR record that Ruth couldn't best or ever match.

Oh, and the first person to actually create the initial record of 5 HRs over two consecutive games was Cap Anson who set it in 1884. How much you want to bet at least one of Anson's HRs was similar to what Cobb did in 1909? If so, that would make Cobb the first person to have set/met that record by actually hitting 5 balls over the fence, at the age of 38. Cobb was too good of a hitter for that to have been some lucky fluke. Whether he said something to a reporter or not, he obviously did something different with the way he batted over those two games in 1925. Could he have so many HRs like Ruth, probably not. But could he have hit more runs over his career, that seems a lot more possible.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobC

And it was because of all these changes that I had also previously brought up in an earlier post the major league record Cobb shares with many others by having hit 5 HRs over two consecutive MLB games. Cobb was the second person to ever do this, achieving the feat in 1925 when he was already 38 years old. And by the way, all 5 five were over the fence. Ruth never equalled this feat despite all his home run prowess. And it wasn't equalled again till Tony Lazzeri matched the feat in 1936. It didn't happen again till Kiner did it on two separate occassions in 1947. The story/myth is that Cobb didn't really care for Ruth and all his HRs and supposedly told some reporter he could hit HRs if he wanted to. It's a bit like the Ruth "Called Shot" story, but regardless, Cobb does still hold a piece of a HR record that Ruth couldn't best or ever match.

Nate Colbert hit 5 home runs in a double header. Clearly better than Ruth...

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Nate Colbert hit 5 home runs in a double header. Clearly better than Ruth...

Scott,

I don't know if you are joking or being sarcastic. I never said Ruth or Cobb was better than the other. Simply stating factual information and getting crap for it from mostly pro-Ruth people who obviously don't like any information that doesn't completely agree with their thinking. For all the crap I've gotten, I'm still waiting for an honest and logical response from at least one of the pro-Ruth people regarding the all-time best player rankings of the various managers polled in 1931. Cobb was the clear victor, with Wagner just edging out Ruth. The only response that posting got was something about it being biased and showing favoritism, like how all the not so deserving players were being put into the HOF. And yes, you were the poster that said all that.

If my memory serves me correctly, Frisch was considered the original ringleader in getting friends inducted into the HOF, and understand about LaRussa, but neither of them were included in that poll. So to make the blanket statement like you did seems a little out there, don't you think? The only potential bias I could see in that group was of McCarthy voting for Ruth as #1, and being his then current manager. And I'm still waiting to see how someone could disparage Walter Johnson's opinion of Cobb, Ruth, and Jackson, all being better players than Ruth.

Maybe they were thinking more in terms of an overall best all-around player, like what is referred to as a five-tool player today. Which could make some sense. So if the five-tools are as follows, here's how they may go:



SPEED

Cobb had 897 stolen bases over his career, which I believe still has him at #4 all-time today, to only 123 for Ruth. Cobb led the Majors in stolen bases 6 times, but also led the majors in getting caught stealing 3 times, which was a function of how often he'd try to steal. This is an easy one. - COBB



ARM STRENGTH

Hard to determine. With Ruth being a pitcher you would expect him to be able to throw well with great arm strength. That being said, I think the attribute really has more to do with making throws in the field, at which Cobb excelled. Over his career Cobb had 392 assists, putting him at #2 all-time in that category I believe. And in viewing online sites looking for the best OF arms in baseball, Cobb and Ruth both can be ranked in the Top 20 lists of all-time. In comparison, Ruth only had 204 career assists, but that is also a function of him having played a few years as a pitcher and thus having fewer opportunities to make such plays. On the the surface, based on the Assist stat alone, many might say Cobb. But because of the disparity of chances between the two, and Ruth's obvious strength as a pitcher, I think this is more of a push. - TIE



FIELDING ABILITY

Another tough one, with Ruth a very slight edge over Cobb in fielding percentage career-wise of .968 to .961. However, Cobb did play the bulk of his career in CF, normally a more defensively demanding position, whereas Ruth was mostly in RF or LF, along with being a pitcher his first few years with Boston. On a gross basis, Cobb had 271 OF errors (278 overall), which puts him about 14th on the all-time list for errors made, and not necessaarily good. Ruth meanwhile made 155 OF errors (179 overall) during his career. However, with Cobb's speed and aggression playing CF, it can expected Cobb tried to make plays on a lot more hit balls than Ruth would have, and thus a few more errors. This is borne out by the fact that Cobb had 7,195 fielding chances to only 5,535 for Ruth during their careers. And despite the big difference in total gross number of errors, their career fielding percentages were stilll only .007 apart. I can easily see Cobb making up that slight difference on the increased difficulty factor he likely had on many more plays than Ruth due to his aggressive nature, speed, and style of play. Too close otherwise, i'd call this a push also. - TIE



HITTING FOR AVERAGE

Cobb all-time highest ever career batting average of .366 and Ruth a little down the list at .342, which isn't shabby. Meanwhile, Cobb led the Majors in BA 12 times overall (and 9 times in a row at one point), and batted over .400 three times, all still major league records. Ruth only led the Majors in BA once. Cobb also finished with 4,189 hits in his career (still #2 all-time behind Rose) to 2,873 hits for Ruth. However, Ruth also had 2,062 walks in his career, leading the majors in that category in 11 different seasons. Cobb meanwhile had 1,249 walks in his career, but never once led the majors in that category. And to cover the negative side of things, Ruth had 1,330 trikeouts in his career, leading the majors in that category 5 times, while Cobb struck out only 680 times in his career, never leading the majors once. The next level is to look at their OBPs as opposed to just straight batting averages. In this case Ruth had a career OBP of .474, leading the majors in that category 10 times. Cobb's OBP was actually lower at only .433 for his career, but still having led the majors 7 times in that category. Despite Ruth having a higher OBP, the tool is called HITTING FOR AVERAGE, so I'd have to follow that and end up going with the highest batting average. - COBB



HiTTING FOR POWER

Here's where Ruth will shine. HRs all-time, 714, leading the majors in that category 12 times overall (6 in a row at one point), and came in/tied for 2nd 3 more times. That puts him at #3 on the all-time career HR total list, but still at #1 for the number of seasons leading the majors. Cobb meanwhile had only 117 HRs in his career, but still did manage to lead the Majors in that category the one year he won the Triple Crown, and surprisingly came in/tied for 2nd in another 4 seasons. In SLG and OPS Ruth shines again, with career totals of .690 and 1.164 respectively, which are both #1 all-time for MLB. Cobb has career SLG and OPS numbers of .512 and .944 respectively, which has him down around 85th and 28th on those respective all time lists after including Negro League players. Not surprisingly, Ruth also led the Majors in both SLG and OPS over 13 different seasons, which is also #1 all-time in MLB for both categories.. But not to be completely outdone, Cobb surpringly led the Majors in SLG 8 times during his career, and led in OPS 10 times, including 1925 when he broke Ruth's string of OPS titles. Cobb actually had more career Total Bases than Ruth, with 5,845 versus 5,793, but took way more ABs to do it, 11,440 versus 8,399.

Though he still wouldn't get close to Ruth, I would point out during his career Cobb had 897 steals and was caught stealing only 212 times, for a net positive steals number of 685. If you consider this the same as if 685 times he had hit a double or triple, instead of just a single or double, that would considerably improve his SLG and OPS numbers in relation to Ruth's. Even though Ruth stole 123 bases during his career, he was also caught 117 times, resulting in a net positive steals number of only 6, versus Cobb's 685 total. You might also consider adding the net positive steals numbers to their career Total Bases amounts as well for a better comparison.

And though not generally POWER type stats, I'll throw RBIs and Runs Scored in this area as well. Over his career Ruth had 2,174 Runs Scored and 2,214 RBIs, putting him tied for #4 all-time on the Runs Scored list, and #2 on the all-time RBI list (he does have Pujols closing in on his RBI spot though). He then led the Majors in Runs Scored and RBIs for 8 and 5 years, respectively. Meanwhile, Cobb in his career had 2,245 Runs Scored and 1,944 RBIs, putting him at #2 and #9 on those all-time MLB lists, respectively. And Cobb then led the Majors in Runs Scored and RBIs for 5 and 4 years, respectively.

Ruth did a lot more damage in a lot fewer fewer ABs, though Cobb more than holds his own for the period and type of ball being played during the bulk of his career when it comes to his POWER numbers. Fairly clear who still gets this category though. - RUTH


Not necessarily an exact way to do this, but throw in that Cobb also managed teams whereas Ruth ended up never doing so, and you may begin to see how this may not be so cut and dried as many may think as to who was actually better. Throw in the further complicating fact that they both split their careers playing in both the dead and live ball eras, witn Cobb's prime in the deadball era and Ruth's prime in the live ball era, after other rule changes and changes to field dimensions among oher things.

The pro-Ruth people will obviously tout his slugging and home run hitting abilities and say that and his WAR trumps everythingg else. Others may look at some of these facts and statistics I and others have listed and surmise he isn't even a 5-tool player, or that he wasn't thought of as a good enough leader and ballplayer for anyone to really want to pick him as a manager, unless it was more of a publicity stunt to increase the gate for some owner. He does have the great outlier of starting out as a fabulous pitcher before becoming a slugging phenom, but never really did them both full-time for very long like Ohtani is trying to do, and look at all the health issues he's been having. Truth is, they're both great for the specific times and circumstances during and under which they played. And instead of just talking and arguing about a single greatest pre-war player, maybe we have to finally further break down the eras for a pre-war deadball era from 1900-1920, and a pre-war live ball era from 1921-1941. Nineteenth century would/could be considered as their own deadball era then I guess. Maybe then you'll stop all this nonsense and get back to all the more important things on this forum......complaining about TPGs, AHs, card doctors, Ebay, PWCC, Probstein, rising prices, shill bidding, the Registry, AI grading, all the crappy dealers/sellers you don't like, all the crappy buyers you don't like, and anything else I've missed.

Somebody post a card please, I don't have a scanner.........

[Mark17]

The question was "greatest." Who changed the game more than Ruth? Which franchise built the (at the time) biggest, grandest new ballpark based largely on the attendance driven by one single player?

Ask your average person on the street if they know the name "Ty Cobb" or "Babe Ruth." Just about everyone has heard of Ruth, but lots of non-sports fans maybe haven't heard of Cobb.

He swung big, he hit big, he missed big, he lived big. Babe Ruth is hugely bigger than life.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by BobC

...Somebody post a card please...

Here's a card of - unquestionably - the greatest pre-war player to appear as my avatar.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by BobC

All due respect, the World Series alone is a nominal factor, at best, in determining how good an individual player is. Baseball is a team sport, and regardless of how good an individual is, they cannot single-handedly propel a team all by themself to always win.

Obviously, I cannot attest to stories about Ruth by his team-mates. I can attest to comments regarding Mickey Mantle by his team-mates which I've personally heard from (such as
Tommy Henrich, Yogi Berra, Don Larsen, Johnny Sain, Charlie Silvera and my hometown nearby neighbor Phil Rizzuto) all of which talked about how Mantle's everyday performance inspired the team to play the game better. This same type of inspiration has been suggested in books written about Babe Ruth's influence on his team-mates during the years 1920
to the early 1930's.

Originally Posted by BobC

And glad I gave you a laugh, but in all seriousness, that Cobb actually led the majors in home runs one season was the salient point I was most trying to get across. The fact that it was known he was not trying to hit home runs, as you aptly pointed out by his use of a choked-up batting grip, yet he still was able to lead the majors in that category one season during the height of the deadball era, points to Cobb having an ability that was ahead of most all others of his contemporaries. At least till the end of the deadball era. perhaps a better question would be how come no one else hit as many as Cobb that year he won the Triple Crown?

Come on Bob, for you to use such an anecdotal example during the Dead-Ball era regarding HR's which were subsequently ruled Ground-Rule Doubles is ridiculous. But if you insist,
on bringing up this "Triple-Crown" example of Cobb's, then I have to remind you that Ruth hit 11 HR's in 1918, and 29 in 1919 in the Dead-Ball era.

Actually, you are "grasping at straws" by using such a weak example to make your argument that Cobb was better than Ruth. I find this very disappointing. And, my discussion with
you ENDS here.....PERIOD.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Obviously, I cannot attest to stories about Ruth by his team-mates. I can attest to comments regarding Mickey Mantle by his team-mates which I've personally heard from (such as
Tommy Henrich, Yogi Berra, Don Larsen, Johnny Sain, Charlie Silvera and my hometown nearby neighbor Phil Rizzuto) all of which talked about how Mantle's everyday performance inspired the team to play the game better. This same type of inspiration has been suggested in books written about Babe Ruth's influence on his team-mates during the years 1920
to the early 1930's.





Come on Bob, for you to use such an anecdotal example during the Dead-Ball era regarding HR's which were subsequently ruled Ground-Rule Doubles is ridiculous. But if you insist,
on bringing up this "Triple-Crown" example of Cobb's, then I have to remind you that Ruth hit 11 HR's in 1918, and 29 in 1919 in the Dead-Ball era.

Actually, you are "grasping at straws" by using such a weak example to make your argument that Cobb was better than Ruth. I find this very disappointing. And, my discussion with
you ENDS here.....PERIOD.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Ted,

I never said Cobb was better than Ruth. I'm also not grasping at straws and merely pointing out how you seemingly laughed at Cobb and put down his Triple Crown performance in comparison to Ruth's 1923 season. It is not an apples to apples comparison you were making and points out all the problems in trying to compare players from different times and eras, and Ruth and Cobb clearly are in playing in different eras due to all the aforementioned changes that occured before and after Ruth went to the Yankees.

The fact that you would laugh at something that Cobb accomplished and Ruth couldn't is just appalling to me, especially when I know how much you care for the T206 set, of which Cobb is such an integral and important part. No one is right or wrong in any of their opinions as to who was best because there is no way to prove it one way or another. But of all people on here, I thought with your experience and wisdom you would be of a more open mind and absolutely understand the differences in the rules and how the game was played and changed over time, and how that makes for senseless arguments 100 years later as to who was the best.

And what does Mantle and his teammates have to do with Ruth? If you are implying they both inspired their teammates to be the best possible players and thus win championships with them, okay. But you do realize they both had great teammates to begin with, and Mantle and Ruth alone did not insure victory? In fact, isn't inspiring players to do their best and win what teams hire managers to do? It is well known that Ruth wanted to manage in the majors, especially for the Yankees. And he had some options and chances to maybe manage during his last few years in the majors, but seemed to squander and sabotage them all by his actions. He ended up not managing anywhere, which according to your thinking makes no sense because he was apparently so good in always gettting his fellow players to do their best to win, which is exactly what a Manager is hired to do. If that were truly the case, then why didn't he have multiple teams knocking on his door to manage them? Was all of major league baseball wrong and only you are right?

Or what about all those 1931 managers who were polled and said that they would rank Cobb and Wagner higher than Ruth. And I don't think you can really count McCarthy's picking Ruth as #1 as necessarily legit since he was managing Ruth at the time, and if it ever got back to Ruth he'd picked someone else at #1, who knew how Ruth may have reacted. And that list of people polled even included Walter Johnson, who apparently had Cobb, Wagner, and even Joe Jackson all ranked ahead of Ruth. But what would Walter Johnson know about how good of a baseball player someone may be, right?

Asking who is the greatest of all-time in any sport is a trick question with generally no perfect and/or single answer. The biggest problem is there will never be an agreed upon definition of what "greatest of all-time" actually means and stands for, especially when dealing with team sports. I was merely providing some factual, statistical information to show how Cobb stood in relation to things done by Ruth, and to illustrate how there can be things that people sometimes forget or miss in such comparisons. I had interpreted your comment regarding Cobbs' Triple Crown season as you feeling it was a joke to even think of comparing it to one of Ruth's seasons because of his "bigger" overall numbers. And by dispaging Cobb, you do indeed disparage everyone else in 1909 because he was arguably the best offensive player in the majors that year. I wasn't really looking for a reply from you, but had you come back and said you were not intending to dismiss Cobb's accomplishments and were not making fun of his Triple Crown in light of Ruth's accomplishments and realized the differences in how the game had changed so drastically between those two years, I would have apologized for misinterpreting your meaning. But based on how you did respond, it seems fairly clear what your intent was all along, and that truly saddens me.